Whether the fact that the challenged portions of New Jersey's ERPO Act are flagrantly and patently violative of the Fourth Amendment bars the Federal Courts from abstaining under Younger

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Whether the fact that the challenged portions of New Jersey's ERPO Act are “... flagrantly and . patently violative ...” of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars the Federal Courts, as a matter of fact and law, from abstaining under Younger? 2. Whether the District Court and Third Circuit incorrectly applied this Court’s precedents in Younger and the limited extension of that doctrine to related civil, quasi-criminal and administrative cases pending in state court and wrongfully and inappropriately abstained? 3. Whether the New Jersey Attorney General’s “Memo Fix” is a remedy that violates the rule in United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010)? This case involves two parallel ongoing civil proceedings, one pending in New Jersey state court, the other pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Both proceedings involve application of an admittedly unconstitutional New Jersey state statute, New Jersey’s version of a “Red Flag Gun Law”, the New Jersey Extreme Risk Protective Order Act of 2018 “ERPO Act”), New Jersey Public Law 2018, Chapter 35, now codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:58-20 through -32 (